4.7 Review

Machine learning for clinical decision support in infectious diseases: a narrative review of current applications

Journal

CLINICAL MICROBIOLOGY AND INFECTION
Volume 26, Issue 5, Pages 584-595

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.cmi.2019.09.009

Keywords

Artificial intelligence; Clinical decision support system; Infectious diseases; Information technology; Machine learning

Funding

  1. Ile-deFrance Regional Health Agency, Paris, France
  2. National Institute for Health Research Health Protection Research Unit (NIHR HPRU) in Healthcare Associated Infection and Antimicrobial Resistance at Imperial College London
  3. Public Health England (PHE)
  4. French Association de Chimioth~erapie Anti-Infectieuse (ACAI)
  5. ESRC [ES/P008313/1] Funding Source: UKRI

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Machine learning (ML) is a growing field in medicine. This narrative review describes the current body of literature on ML for clinical decision support in infectious diseases (ID). Objectives: We aim to inform clinicians about the use of ML for diagnosis, classification, outcome prediction and antimicrobial management in ID. Sources: References for this review were identified through searches of MEDLINE/PubMed, EMBASE, Google Scholar, biorXiv, ACM Digital Library, arXiV and IEEE Xplore Digital Library up to July 2019. Content: We found 60 unique ML-clinical decision support systems (ML-CDSS) aiming to assist ID clinicians. Overall, 37 (62%) focused on bacterial infections, 10 (17%) on viral infections, nine (15%) on tuberculosis and four (7%) on any kind of infection. Among them, 20 (33%) addressed the diagnosis of infection, 18 (30%) the prediction, early detection or stratification of sepsis, 13 (22%) the prediction of treatment response, four (7%) the prediction of antibiotic resistance, three (5%) the choice of antibiotic regimen and two (3%) the choice of a combination antiretroviral therapy. The ML-CDSS were developed for intensive care units (n = 24, 40%), ID consultation (n = 15, 25%), medical or surgical wards (n = 13, 20%), emergency department (n = 4, 7%), primary care (n = 3, 5%) and antimicrobial stewardship (n = 1, 2%). Fifty-three ML-CDSS (88%) were developed using data from high-income countries and seven (12%) with data from low- and middle-income countries (LMIC). The evaluation of ML-CDSS was limited to measures of performance (e.g. sensitivity, specificity) for 57 ML-CDSS (95%) and included data in clinical practice for three (5%). (C) 2019 European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available